Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
As a side issue, it's interesting to note...
When I start Studio and load the scene with 3D preview in something other than Iray, the system RAM usage is minor (maybe 4-6GB). And then when I select Iray viewport, it goes up to a total system RAM usage of about 16GB. And when the GPU finishes loading the scene into VRAM (8GB available on my GTX 1070), the total VRAM usage is only 64% (or about 5GB of the 8GB).
So the scene uses like 12GB of system RAM, but only 5GB of GPU VRAM. So I guess there's a ton of optimizing/compressing and stuff going on when it's handed off from the system to the GPU.
Part of that may have to do with Nvidia's VRAM texture compression that your regular system RAM does not get to use.
I agree with getting the 32GB of RAM. My laptop has 16GB of RAM and on several ocasions I have come very close to maxing it while working in Daz Studio.
The last I heard 3200 was the limit, but that may have changed.
Yup, seems like that's the case. Here's part of the ASUS QVL for that Crosshair board. Though surprisingly the one that's posted at the ASUS site is from August.
If I'm reading that right only a couple of them support a full 32GB (and none of those in view support 64GB).
It supports 64 GB. That's just a QVL and I believe (though ebergerly can say for sure) the RAM amounts are pack sizes.
https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/ROG-CROSSHAIR-VI-HERO/specifications/
For Zbrush, it depends on what you do. There are some task that are CPU heavy. But all depends on the density of the model. If not working on Million Poly model, then that may not be important. Comparison is the same as with memory. If you don't full up your memory, you won't swap to the disk and won't see the necessity of additionnal RAM.
I can list a lot of CPU dependant applications. But I'm not sure that would be usefull because these are what I use. Anyway I don't see your point, as AMD's 8 core Rysen is not that expensive and having more core is future proof. As AMD introduced a relatively cheap multicore processor, more and more applications that were only optimized up to 4 core should evolve to benefit from that.
Ex : if DS smoothing modifier was multithreaded, you'd have a better experience especially when dealing with alot of models in the scene.
And for people who multithread a lot, more core is also welcome. I'm saying that because you didn't react at the suggestion of going from GTX 1070->GTX 1080 Ti which is double price
I didn't see a lot of 64GB kits running at 3200 Mhz speed. Just the GSkill Flare https://www.gskill.com/en/press/view/g-skill-announces-flare-x-series-and-fortis-series-ddr4-memory-for-amd-ryzen
Some kits can run at 2933 Mhz. Finding a kit that runs at 2100 or 2400 is easier
The memory choice is very difficult right now if you want 64GB. AMD Issued Agesa 1.0.0.6 in June and that is relatively recent. You need a bios update from the motherboard manufacturer.
QVL may also not be up to date or tests were not made. If you look at the Asus X370 Prime QVL here the list has a whole lot more DDR4 kits listed
There is a review of Agesa 1006 http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-agesa-1006-performance-update-review.html
* double post
Thanks. My point was merely that the OP asked about a computer build with a top end Ryzen 1800x with water cooling. I responded that the OP may or may not need to spend an additional $300 or so on a top end CPU and water cooling, and perhaps he could buy a lower end CPU with included air cooling, and spend the money elsewhere on something more targeted to his needs. It all depends, as I've said many times, on his particular needs. Again, I'm not saying he SHOULDN'T buy a top end CPU, only that he should first think what he needs and then decide. I'm not recommending one way or the other, just to THINK about it. But I guess in tech forums it tends to be viewed as a battle between opposing sides for some reason.
I also questioned the strongly held belief that many 3D apps need high power CPU's. But when it gets down to the facts, it seems like while there are some which benefit from high power CPU's, most of the really compute-intensive tasks (rendering, simulations, etc.) are going more and more toward GPU's. And whether those "CPU intensive" 3D apps require a top-of-the-line CPU is still a question. Why spend $350 on a CPU and water cooling if your apps run fine with a $150 CPU and air cooling? Just because an app uses CPU's for its tasks doesn't mean it benefits from a huge number of cores or a higher clock speed, especially if the stuff you're doing doesn't stress the hardware.
And by the way, I keep hearing about "future proofing" your computer. And that's a great idea. But isn't it more important to first "now proof", and worry about the future after the present is covered? ANY technology can be justified by a blanket statement of "future proofing", no matter how extreme.
Yes, I wasn't sure how the BIOS updates were going with memory support since it seems unlikely I am going to get around to upgrading my machine this year (blue smoke permitting).
I agree it depends on each one's use but CPU intensive apps are not rare
Renderers ; Vray, 3delight, Prman, Corona Render, Guerilla render
Most video audio/encoders are using CPU
Compiling c++ Apps
Using Virtual machines
Inside DS you still have 3delight. A 8 core can greatly help in rendering
About the "now proof" I think it's nonsense. Either you badly chose your hardware, and got something that doesn't suit your need and you'll have to adjust that, or you are financially limited and can't get what you want and may have to lower your requirement or wait until you have enough money
ebergerly, 3Delight is still CPU only and Renderman is mostly CPU, with GPU being used for noise reduction last time I checked. I think Lightwave is still CPU only. And that's a list only going off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.
There is no such thing as "now proof". If you cover your options allowing for future growth, you are automatically covering your needs for now. You are making an argument for a concept that doesn't exist. It is a wise choice to build a computer a little stronger than you need (if it is within budget) because the future is unknown, but it will likely involve applications that need stronger computers.
I'm surprised at the arguments. I'm only saying use your money for the stuff that will benefit you most now, and then if you have leftover budget then worry about future proofing. If the OP's applications don't require a high end CPU, then use that money elsewhere. But if they do, then get a high end CPU.
How does that not make sense?
@OP
More RAM has been suggested, I'd agree.
1080ti, also I'd agree. I would however consider two alternatives such as two graphics cards: one for rendering one for display.
PSU: not that much leaway if you think about adding another card, or decide on liquid cooling or whatever else starts making demands on your system.
Dropping the performance slightly of the CPU - you could, but personally I wouldn't.
My own take on it: increase the RAM to 32GB, otherwise keep with it; as soon as you can afford it, buy a second card and make it a 1080ti.
...my current system was designed with "future proof" in mind when it came to Daz and Carrara. At the time GPU rendering was something only available to pro grade software and even then it was fairly limited. Then, along came Lux and Reality, but unless you had a multi blade server with dual 6 core Xeons on each baord, it's render performance was measured in geologic time.
With the introduction of Iray in Daz my system he game was changed completely as my system went from "rather capable", to "barely able" overnight. This kind of technological jump is one of those situations nobody can anticipate or prepare for. Now it is a game of catch up one that is extremely difficult to join on a severly limited budget.
The ideal CPU based system I have in mind will take around 2,500$ to build, that's about 1,000$ more than it took me to build my current one (sans displays which I already had and still have ). Ganted it will have ten times the memory of the current system as well as 20/40 more CPU cores/threads. However unlike 5 years ago, my income is at best half of what it was. The only hope I have is that my legal advocates come through and win the appeal case for the retroactive benefits I'm due which goes back several years (which could take a couple years more).
Hopefully when Nvidia releases the consumer level Volta cards we will be treated with an increase in VRAM.
Through the RAM doubling law the Volta sereis may look something like this.
GTX 1150 2/4GB
GTX 1150 ti 8GB
GTX 1160 12GB
GTX 1170 16GB
GTX 1180 16GB GDDR5X (Or HBM2)
GTX 1180 ti 22GB GDDR5X (Or 20GB HBM2)
Volta Titan 24GB GDDR5X (Or HBM2)
The Quadro cards
V3000 10GB
V4000 16GB
V5000 16GB HBM2 + 32GB version when larger HBM chips are ready (Same as the currnet V100 Tesla card)
V6000 24GB HBM2 / 48GB version when larger HBM chips are ready
That's my prediction for the Volta family. 8K gaming is right around the corner, and let me tell you, the one and only time I tried maxing all the settings out at 4K on Mass Effect Andromeda it ate all 6GB of VRAM on my GTX 1060 and wanted more (Then promptly crashed the game)
kyoto kid I sure hope things go well with your appeals case. Legal stuff is rarely (actually never) fun, and sadly often takes ages. Hang in there.
Thank you all for your suggestions! You were all a lot of help. I took everything in considerarion and finally went with this combination.
They are asseambling it. I hope it all goes fine. :)
Nice!